CIAM Subcommittee F2

1. CIAM Subcommittee F2 Eurochamps F2, July 2007, Belgrade F2B Judging Workshop F2B Work Group JUDGE TRAINING Common Language for Errors Representation Presented by Massimo Semoli, CIAM Secretary/Delegate, Italy

2. The Objectives that we need to achieve with the training of judges are: • To inform and educate the judges • For all the judges to have the same interpretation • To uplift the standard of judging • To ensure fair results • We need a feed back from the judgesUntil we don’t establish a way for understanding how a judge evaluates the errors and interprets a manoeuvre, we will not be able to meet completely the above objectives. • A connection between the score and the errors seenOnly during the training sessions of the judges a common language could be established in order to understand which errors have been seen in relation to the assigned score for each manoeuvre.

3. The common language The common language should be quickly to write and easily to understand.It should be a compromise between a sort of stenography and self-explanatory language. • Time available between the manoeuvresThe time available is not much but with good practice and establishing simple rules, a common language can be effectiveness used. • Advantage of useThe use of the common language it is also useful for improving the concentration on the manoeuvre evaluation. More important for beginner judges during the training sessions. • Proposed languageThe proposed language is based on indications and sketches and, during the years, showed to be used for training judging sessions during the normal flight evaluation.

4. The rules of useFor each manoeuvre: • Amplify the errors with the sketches • Identify or show only the main errors; they could be major and/or minor • Don’t try to show all the errors; only two, maximum three • Don’t represent detailed segmented path; it not possible to represent it properly • Focus on the major errors first and minor errors after • The weight of the error(s) represented is identified by the assigned score: • If High score - minor errors are represented • If Low score – major errors are represented • ResultsThe above rules seem to limit the effectiveness of the approach, but with a proper use of the language the results are surprisingly positive. Try !!!! • Personal adjustmentAny judge can include preferred and personal adjustment to this language, also based on his experience. It is only important that it remains: simple, quick to write, effectiveness and easy to understand.

5. The Common Language

6. Meaning of the general indications > 45 greater than 45 degrees >> 45 much greater than 45 degrees < 45 less than 45 degrees > 90 greater than 90 degrees >> 90 much greater than 90 degrees > 1.8 higher than 1.8 meters >> 1.8 much higher than 1.8 meters < 1.2 lower than 1.2 meters > 1 more than 1 lap < 1 less than 1 lap << 1 much less than 1 lap

7. Take-Off manoeuvre Abrupt trajectory change Reverse wing-over manoeuvre Two vertical climbs/dives not coincident Rounded turns climbs/dives not vertical Wobbles jerks

8. Three consecutive inside loops manoeuvre Two consecutive laps of inverted level flight manoeuvre Different position Wobbles jerks

9. Three consecutive outside loops manoeuvre Two consecutive inside square loops manoeuvre Different position Rounded turns

10. Two consecutive outside square loops manoeuvre Two consecutive inside triangular loops manoeuvre Rounded turns Steep Flat Different position Rounded turn Rounded turns

11. Two consecutive horizontal eight manoeuvre (each) Two consecutive horizontal square eight manoeuvre (each)

12. Two consecutive vertical eight manoeuvre (each) Hourglass manoeuvre Flat Steep

13. Two consecutive overhead eight manoeuvre (each) ( top view ) Four-leaf clover manoeuvre

14. Landing manoeuvre Abrupt trajectory change Wobbles jerks

15. JUDGE TRAINING Common Language For Errors Representation Thank you ! Presented by Massimo Semoli, CIAM Secretary/Delegate, Italy